Posted
by
timothy
on Sunday October 11, 2009 @03:31PM
from the your-allotment-of-seconds-on-earth dept.

theodp writes "When he gets some free time away from his gigs at startup Milo and The Register, you won't catch Ted Dziuba doing any recreational programming. And he wouldn't want to work for a company that doesn't hire those who don't code in their spare time. 'You know what's more awesome than spending my Saturday afternoon learning Haskell by hacking away at a few Project Euler problems?' asks Dziuba. 'F***, ANYTHING.'"

Slow news day, of course. It's SUNDAY. Ask timothy - it was a toss up between the Ted Zuby story, and the one I submitted. "My 85 year old mother in law figures out Gmail: The wife finally convinced her that it wasn't just another pr0n movie from France."

This despicable monster is a plague worse than the biblical locusts. Swarms of these screeching monsters peck at pets and small children, make an awful mess pulling anything edible out of the garbage containers, and cover the city with their immense splashes of their foul, abrasive excrement. You think pigeon poop is a problem? A herron poops puddles the size of a pigeon! Oh and the screeching! Have you ever heard one of these monsters

I don't, personally (in-the-face) know any proper open-source hackers. I do know a few programmers, though, who work professionally in their field. And when the latter group isn't coding for a 40-hour week, they're not at all opposed to coding to make their own life easier. (I don't know if they're particularly opposed to open-source or not, but somehow I suspect that they just can't be bothered with the extra work of maintaining publicly-available packages when all they want is a widget to help them in their own daily life.)

This guy, though: He's like a professional, career-oriented brick mason, who sits around watching his 150-year-old red brick house crumble around him, while loudly proclaiming "I don't do masonry in my free time. So suck it, fellas!"

It's illogical, and it's stupid. And Timothy is banking on the fact that we will notice and commence with a myriad of banter (read: pageviews) about the topic.

Everyone who replied to this (including me!) has been played. Congrats, Timmy.

This guy, though: He's like a professional, career-oriented brick mason, who sits around watching his 150-year-old red brick house crumble around him, while loudly proclaiming "I don't do masonry in my free time. So suck it, fellas!"

Erm, what? No, he's more like a brickie who gets home from his week at work and sits down in front of the TV with a beer instead of immediately running out to the back yard, mixing cement, and starting to build some random piece of wall just because he's got nothing better to do than try pointless exercises with different types of brick he's never used before and, god dammit, will almost certainly never use again. He's the brickie that gets home from work and actually relaxes and spends some time off because he knows that, while there're always new things to learn, he's mastered the basics and some of the advanced techniques in his job and that he's well enough equipped to perform his work well.

Programming for fun is great if you've got nothing better to do. But once you're doing 40+ hours of something productive a week it starts to lose its shine compared with activities which were actually designed from the start to be fun.

This guy, though: He's like a professional, career-oriented brick mason, who sits around watching his 150-year-old red brick house crumble around him, while loudly proclaiming "I don't do masonry in my free time. So suck it, fellas!"

Not that I would disagree with the rest of your post otherwise, but I'm not sure which 'this guy' you're talking about... Dziuba's blog doesn't fit the description above by any stretch. His point is obvious enough to anyone who bothers to read the first two paragraphs: hiring *only* programmers who spent their free time coding is an absurd criteria - which may seem reasonable to kids right out of college, because they assume 'spare time' is and will be an abundant resource in their life.

This seems to be a more typical case of the Slashdot summary having nothing to do with the linked article - and the Slashdot editor not bothering to even click on the link before posting.

Actually it does work like that but you have to calculate your continuous, rather than peak, earnings per hour. If you get paid $50/hr and you work 8 hours a day, you're only actually earning $16.70/hour. For it to be a genuine saving to take the helicopter, you'd have to save more than 12 extra hours in the 'copter on that $200 trip.
There's a reason we fly rather than drive when we're travelling long distance.

It looks like he graduated in 2006... which is when I graduated and I'm 23. But then he posts this:

"I love it when twenty-something engineers take such a hard-line position on something they have so little experience with, like hiring. Saying that you wouldn't hire somebody for a programming job because they don't program in their spare time is blissfully naive. Yeah, I remember the days when my greatest responsibility to another human being was making rent on the first of the month."

You don't know that. Doing something for ~8 hours a day can lower ones intensity to do it in their "free time".

What I've found is that I`m more inclined to work on the opposite of what I do at work.

I worked at a place where the code base was a disaster.. there was no planning or design work.. no requirements management.. no semblance of order to anything (though we were working to fix that).. and I found in my free time I enjoyed coding in a very designed and managed way.. kind of refreshing to work on nice tidy Java code.

Now I work at pretty much the opposite. Every line of code is reviewed and re-reviewed.. then the review process is reviewed and a binder of documentation is produced tying it to the requirements, testing, and phase of the moon. The design process of even a simple change can take months followed by (literally) years of testing. And when I get home.. I immerse myself in Perl and just "code the damn thing already".

On the original point.. it's been my experience that while there are some programmers who are very good at their job despite treating it like a 9 to 5.. the vast majority of good coders I know at least dabble with stuff at home. I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask what (if any) projects a person works on at home. I wouldn't use it as a sole judge of whether they are a good candidate.. but it would certainly factor into things.

As for what a person does (non programming) in their off time.. again.. I think perfectly reasonable. Also on the table in my opinion are what their favourite classes in high school were, what books/movies that like, what music, what they do with their friends on a Friday. When you hire someone into a team.. you arn't just hiring an automaton that is capable of performing a set list of tasks. I've met brilliant programmers whom I'd pass over for a high school kid.. because despite being good at their job.. they would have been a negative person to have around and would make work hell (yes.. having a fun and happy work environment is important..)

This guy sounds similar to myself. If the job is a 9-5 coding, I don't want to spend my free time coding. If my 9-5 is working on cars, I don't want to spend my free time working on cars. If my 9-5 is being a doctor, I don't want to spend my free time working in the clinic.

It comes to preferences. My job is a job. Not a career. Not a stepping stone. Not a direction to a greater path in my field. Once I've reached a particular spot and I'm happy and/or comfortable with it - that's it. But when all is said and done and I come home for the day, I have more important things to worry about like my family, my hobbies and/or what other fun things I want to do. Not sitting on my arse in front of a computer. Not unless I need to, and those needs are defined by staying relevant in my field, like all fields. Medical, programming, mechanic etc. All else is purely extra and it sounds like this guy doesn't want that extra to be on the computer like a hobby. Can't fault him for that.

Sure.. but if you have an auto-mechanic who went to community college, learned his stuff.. and now works at a shop and does a good job.. vs a guy who practically lives and breaths cars and spends his off hours fixing up old wrecks.. who is the better candidate.

Not saying the first guy is unemployable.. just that people who have found something they love and see the fact that they can make a living at it is as just a nice bonus tend to be better candidates.

This guy sounds similar to myself. If the job is a 9-5 coding, I don't want to spend my free time coding. If my 9-5 is working on cars, I don't want to spend my free time working on cars. If my 9-5 is being a doctor, I don't want to spend my free time working in the clinic.

On the one hand, I totally get that. In fact, in college I seriously considered not becoming a programmer for a living, specifically because I didn't want to ruin my enjoyment of it...

On the other hand - I think there are certain advantages to making your work something that you naturally enjoy. It's like Scotty on the old Star Trek. There was that one episode where he got a day off and all he wanted to do was read technical journals related to his job... I can relate to that, too. I didn't start learn

It comes to preferences. My job is a job. Not a career. Not a stepping stone. Not a direction to a greater path in my field. Once I've reached a particular spot and I'm happy and/or comfortable with it - that's it.

But for some people, they do overlap. While it might be limiting to say, "I won't hire someone who doesn't code in their spare time," it does act as a reasonable filter. I think it's safe to assume that the set of people who do code in their spare time has very few bad programmers in it. The set of people who don't code in their spare time, however, likely has a much larger proportion of bad programmers. (You could also say that the average quality in the codes-for-fun group is likely higher.)

If you have a limited amount of time and energy to deal with hiring, and your applicant pool is large enough, using a "must code for fun" filter saves you some effort by removing a large population of bad (or even just average, probably) programmers. Does that also remove some great programmers from consideration too? Almost certainly... but it's a trade off. It's a filter with a decent number of false positives, but likely very few false negatives.

I think you are confusing the issue. What you really want is a mechanic who already knew how to work on cars and went to school for the formality, as opposed to some drunk who flunked out of high school and just wanted to learn a trade to fund his trips to the gambling boat and wound up learning to be a mechanic. Likewise, a programmer who didn't know how to code before school is suspect. Especially those types who went to school for programming cause they heard they could make good money.

I wouldn't hire, or work for, a person who treats programming as a 9 to 5 activity. Life is short, and the craft so long to learn.

How many people do you employ directly? What is your position? And do you have a family yet?

Unfortunately you do not usually find out if someone codes in their free time until after you employ them so is not doing this a sackable offence?

I have spent many years coding in my free time, but now I have been doing it professionally for several years I rarely find the time. I like to spend my free time doing things I enjoy. I get the impression you have only just started full time work, or have not been there ye

I wouldn't hire, or work for, a person who treats programming as a 9 to 5 activity. Life is short, and the craft so long to learn.

I wouldn't work for someone like you, who expects me to spend all of my free time working without pay. It doesn't matter what the job is or how much you enjoy it - there comes a point where you just get sick of doing NOTHING but X 24/7. I enjoy my job in IT and still do plenty of stuff with computers in my free time........but I also do a hell of a lot of things outside of computers in my free time. Sound like you wouldn't hire me just because I date / spend time with friends / play games (video, board, card, anything) / read non-computer books / write / watch movies / exercise / work on my car / etc.

Feel free to be the guy who runs around going "I'm so much better than you because I work literally all day every day, even if I'm not getting paid". Why? Because I know that in 20 years, you'll be the one burnt out and just wanting to lay down and die, while I'll be just happy because I used my free time to relax and enjoy life.

A while ago my company interviewed someone who, in the course of some standard question, said that after the 5 o'clock whistle blows, they avoid computers totally. They don't have any hobbies involving their PC and often don't turn it on unless they are expecting an important email or need to look up directions. I followed up to

But he says "F***" in public on the intertubes and so he must have a large amount of courage and really know his own mind. He probably already drives a BMW and is fighting off hordes of gorgeous young women with an excrement-covered stick as we speak.

OK, I did actually read this blog he wrote and yes I think his position is valid. To summarize: Coding in your free time does not make you a good coder. Neither does not coding in your free time make you a balanced person. Both unrelated, thankyouverymuch. This is all in all a discussion you can have or simply ignore.

The one point I'd like to make is... have your read this guys other posts? To summarize: He's a little young fuck with little experience raining down on everyone. It's mixture of the standa

No, a man who is so insecure about having a life that the fact not coding is essential to maintaining this self belief. I realised a while ago, the defining your self image in terms of things you aren't and things you don't do is not a good way of being happy.

I code in my spare time. I also dance salsa and tango and play badminton and ultimate frisbee in my spare time. This evening I was teaching a beginners' tango class and then attending a more advanced one. Before that, I was writing code, after t

It's not a grammatically incorrect sentence. It's just a bit confusing, albeit technically precise. Better would probably have been something like "and he wouldn't want to work for a company that only hires those who like to code in their spare time."

Some people like doing this stuff in their spare time, others not. Though I do agree with the blog entry, "spare time none of my f****g business."

I personally can't work 7 days a week on the same stuff at work. Not because I don't like it, because I do. But because otherwise I will go stir crazy. I work in the market as a quant-developer. My morning starts at 9:00 CET (European markets open), and ends at 22:00 CET (American markets close). And once 22:00 hits let me tell you I am freaken happy that the day is over. And I am freaken happy once Friday close happens because I can relax until next Monday.

Oddly our brokerage (Interactive Brokers) does not allow you to log in over the weekend. I wonder if it is a sort of forced vacation... In the beginning I hated that IB closed over the weekends, but now I truly, truly appreciate it.

None of those jobs involve creating anything. They're just labour. No creative input allowed. You're only doing it because robots aren't advanced enough to do it. They're work. Work sucks.

I've long tought the ideal job is one that you can separate from your personal life, but in the end that's just about all it's about: the possibility of separating job and personal life has to be there. In all jobs. But really the ideal job is the one that's so much fun you don't even care about where the job ends and the personal life starts. And the other way around as well. Unfortunately there aren't enough jobs like that, leaving many people stuck on the 'the ideal job is the one I can forget about when I get home'-situation. But that's just because you haven't found the right job yet. Or because you've simply given up.

If you're spending a major part of your life doing something you'd rather completely forget about once you get home, you DO NOT HAVE THE IDEAL JOB.

An ideal job is one you enjoy. If you enjoy coding in your spare time, then coding is your ideal job.

Sure; however, the reverse isn't necessarily true -- if you don't enjoy coding in your spare time, coding could still be your ideal job.

I coded a lot in my spare time before becoming a full-time coder; now I do it in my spare time very little. I enjoy coding, but 40+ hours of it in a week is generally enough for me. I still spend more time coding in a week than I spend doing probably anything else, and I still enjoy my work, but, for me (and some other people, I'd wager), that's enough. It's something I enjoy doing, and it's something I enjoy doing probably more than anything else that I can get paid for, but it's not the only interest in my life.

When you're looking to hire a gardener, do you examine his previous work, or do you make sure he spends at least x hours a day tending his own garden?

If you do the latter, you're the bigger schmuck.

I'd also like to point out, that this Ted fellow did not say "I'd never work someplace where any of the other employees code at home". He says "I don't want to work someplace where coding at home is _a requirement_". There's a big difference.

Article summary: Smug douchebag knows it all, or gets to learn it all on the job.

Good for him. But for normal people who are, say, coding ASP or Visual Basic 6 at work-- if they would like to have some professional development, I hope they're doing some coding on the side to reinvent themselves. People that don't generally end up doing something like working on COBOL systems principally written in the 60's and 70's. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I'm just saying: most people need to do some personal development off the the side of their job, or else they're stagnating. Plenty of people will disagree with me on this point, and have in the past on Slashdot. But generally speaking, those people have quit growing, and will of course deny it.

No, you don't stop growing. If there's no significant personal growth involved in your day job, and you work on IT, you are working at the wrong place. You are probably doing some tedious, rudimentary task. Or can't do more.

All of IT, especially coding, is a job where your actual job is to learn as much as possible, to provide the best possible solution, for the least amount of actual work. Intelligent laziness for the win! Simplified means: Keep it simple, Stupid, or the KISS principle on pragmatic level.

It takes any idiot to make things more bigger, more complex but it takes a real genius to make things simpler.

Personally I try to avoid companies that care that much about what I do in MY time in general. If I'm not on the clock, its none of your fucking business. If I decide to learn a new language on my own, it is irrelevant until I start using it at work, in which case I expect my going above and beyond to be noticed. If it is required that I learn something new for work, I sure as hell had better be paid by the company for it one way or another (even if it just means doing the learning during company time).

Work is the boring stuff. You're fixing tedious bugs in tedious applications dealing with tedious real world problems like the cover page of the new TPS report. It's like a ski instructor that have to deal with all the horribly inexperienced people doing things all wrong or at least it's nothing like cruising along freely yourself. Obviously after a long day on the job I understand that this person would just want to go home, eat a pizza and do something completely different. But I'd be concerned about the coder that didn't have any pet projects, any interest in coding outside work like a ski instructor that never just goes skiing. No deadlines, no pressure, no dealing with poor specs, annoying customers or superiors. If you don't ever tinker with anything under those conditions I really don't see you giving it your best during work hours either. I don't mean that you need to have a long list of "public" off-hours coding experience that can be validated and put on your CV, just as a personality treat.

You want to know how I learned Haskell? By doing project euler problems... DRUNK. See, this guy is all hoity-toity about going to the bar on weekends.... I bring the bar to ME, then I go out into the trenches, a little bit of beer, and solve those project euler problems after 5 beers minimum.

Nothing like a 12 pack and a functional, correctly solved project euler problem to separate the men from the boys.

Well, he is right: to succeed in business, you generally don't need to be particularly innovative or high-tech. Hiring average programmers that are easy to work with is probably a better business decision than hiring difficult top-notch nerds. But why go into high tech at all then? If you aren't fascinated by technology and just view the whole thing as a business, you might as well make your money with toilet paper or hamburgers.

What this guy probably doesn't know, is that just about all coders that actually are any good at their job, love the endless unlimited possibilities their knowledge provides so much that they simply don't give a fuck about whether somebody is paying them to do it or not. They _HAVE_TO_CREATE_. They _HAVE_TO_SOLVE_PROBLEMS_. They simply cannot be stopped.

While there may be many not-so-good programmers that love to code in their spare time, I have actually _NEVER_ met any good programmer/engineer/developer/whatever that DOESN'T WANT to code in their spare time. I don't think they exist. However, I do think many exist that THINK they're a good programmer. Probably this Ted Dziuba guy is one of them. I'd never hire him.

He talks in one post about how his best articles are trolls. The gentleman is proud of the fact. He also seems to have a long history with startups (= long work weeks and usually good opportunities to learn tech to begin with). He might as well have flagged the post as a sensationalist attempt to get blog traffic.

168 comments in, probably no one is going to read this. Still, I'll say it anyway.

I wouldn't hire someone who had no interest what-so-ever programming in their spare time. That said, I also wouldn't hire someone that does nothing else but program in their spare time. I'm not looking for someone that can solve a general problem (what do I do when I'm not working?) in a specific way. I want a hint that the person I'm talking with during an interview has other interests. I don't want to know what they are. That leads to information I'm not supposed to know during an interview. I just want them to give me an assurance that they are a well-rounded person with other pursuits.

Myself? Of course I program in my spare time. I also collect books, smoke and collect tobacco pipes, play RPGs (the pen and paper kind) with my friends, play computer games, cook... the list of things I do in my spare time is endless. That's what I'm looking for, because someone who doesn't lack for things to do in their spare time most liely comes with several approaches to solving new problems and that's the type of person I'm looking to hire.

The managers you work for, to keep their jobs and get raises, are literally vultures these days. If you come up with something really neat, and the bosses think it might somehow fit into what the company might want, to keep YOUR job, you turn it over to them. Unpaid hours of development = the company making profit just so you can keep your job?

The main reason back in the old days that the unions didn't get so much as a foothold into the tech culture is because tech companies were smart enough to treat their talent really, really well. (If you weren't, well, sorry about your misfortune, but you were in the minority.) You got paid solid pay much higher than the area average, you got full benefits, you had a degree of job security, and you could goof off from time to time and no one held it against you. Over the last 5 years, I've noticed the total number of months I've actually worked for pay drop to literally 6 months a year. I've had "jobs" where I discovered I was competing against an offshore team for consulting teams (and obviously losing because I was unwilling to work for 10 bucks an hour). Benefits? Haven't had even remotely decent coverage for many years. And the last few jobs I've worked, I was (along with my team) highly pressured to "innovate" on my own time in order to keep my job. In order to keep my contract position with no benefits, I was expected to "take ownership" of things on my own time.

An auto shop is not going to threaten to fire their contract employees if they don't work overtime for free. You won't see that in most industries. But because a lot of developers are basically pussies and won't stand up, get together, and fight back, companies are going to do this more and more because they can get away with stealing the fruits of labor YOU create on YOUR OWN time. No, developers are more willing to lay down, call themselves libertarians, rag on the unions, bitch and moan about having no free hours in their days, cry when they get laid off, and stay in that cycle until they drop dead.

I'm just surprised that this kid is burned out already. Usually takes several more years of being used like a whore by managers who contribute nothing more than their ability to lie and cover their own asses. He must be REALLY smart.

If you assume that X straight hours will lead to a greater risk of burnout, then reducing X by not coding when you don't have to could allow you to remain fresh for when you have to put your code on the line.

This is analogous to the proverb stating the difference between Europeans and Americans:

My tram ride to work takes 40 minutes. Honestly, what am I going to do with that time? I have a eeepc 701 loaded with ubuntu. On the tram I write code. It makes the commute bearable for me,

If you can't see what else you could be doing with that time other than coding the I would suggest that you need to step back from it and take a look at the bigger picture. But don't take this as meaning I am saying you shouldn't code - just that you should be aware of the tradeoffs you are making in order to code.

Not really. Theres a huge difference between someone who spends maybe a few free hours a week doing his own thing learning some new techniques or programming some fun thing for himself or whatever, and the kind of basement dwelling hermit who really has no social skills or life outside the computer screen. The first person is the type you should hire, the 2nd is the type you should usually avoid.

Otherwise you might as well say that Ferrari should only hire race drivers who have no real interest in driving or airlines should only hire pilots who have no interest in flying outside of sitting in a 737 pilot seat monitoring systems for 3 hours.

I think the key here is is the person interested enough in coding that they are willing to keep improving themselves as a programmer versus someone who just programs enough to "do their eight and out the gate", and has little interest in much other than making the deadlines.

It is a tough balance: On one hand, life has far more to offer than just spending time coding work stuff 24/7 and being essentially a one trick pony. On the other hand, one needs to keep some interest in their occupation and perhaps co

Otherwise you might as well say that Ferrari should only hire race drivers who have no real interest in driving or airlines should only hire pilots who have no interest in flying outside of sitting in a 737 pilot seat monitoring systems for 3 hours.

I don't suppose you've met very many 737 pilots have you? Flying a 737 or other large aircraft is like driving a bus in the sky. For most, at least of the 10 or so I know personally, flying may have once been a great passion but it has been replaced as something they do as a job.

As far as the article is concerned, I am a programmer, a damn good and distinguished one as a matter of fact, but my experience has taught me that in order to lead a healthy and productive life, there needs to be balance. Which for me, means leaving my work at work, and enjoying other interests in my off time. Don't get me wrong, I still have a great passion for programming, but like I said, I need balance. I would also wager that the majority of programmers who do a lot of coding in their spare time are fairly young in the craft. Once you get about 10-15 years experience of busting your ass day in and day out as a programmer, most will begin to find out that need other things in their life outside of programming.

Then again, I've met quite a few other programmers that really just had nothing better to do with their spare time.

That's fine that after 10-15 years your craft is no longer your highest interest or priority

I guess you missed this part of my post:

Don't get me wrong, I still have a great passion for programming

You can call it balance, call it experience, and it probably is, but however you parse it, if your productive output is less than that of someone else, you can't fault an employer for choosing someone else, especially someone else at half your salary.

Who said anything about productive output. You think a coder is more productive if he also programs in his spare time. First, my productive output is as good or better than my other co-workers. (I'm lucky to work with some really great programmers)
Second, I would argue that someone who has many outside coding projects may actually be less productive.

The truth is I have a few outside projects every now and again, but for the most part, I intentionally try to stay away from them so that other things can come into my life. If you are one of those people that spends all of his free time coding, I urge you, take a break. You don't have to do any specific thing, just leave some time open for life to happen.

So you ONLY program for work now. You NEVER program a small project on your own time, for yourself. Then I would say you have lost the passion. Sure, we can all brag about other stuff we have to do in our lives, if you think that makes you special you are a moron. But somehow I still find time to program, even now.

Well, you assume that you can't be passionate about the programming you do at work. I love my job and I give it 100% of myself for 40hrs a week, and I am very productive in those 40hrs, but when I go home I just want to relax and let something different happen so that I may have a new experience.

This is assuming there are only two extremes. Those who code non-stop and those who don't code at all. There are all sorts of levels in between.

It would cause warnings for me if someone said they refuse to code in their free time. I don't expect them to do it all the time (that's a bit weird too) but if they love what they do then, at some point, they should do it in their free time.

On the other hand, when working as a programmer I found coding some personal project for the sheer enjoyment of it to be a very welcome break from the old 8-to-6 grind of writing getters and setters. Just watching TV or reading a book didn't going to cleanse my mental palate as well as getting to tweak my Mandelbrot renders again. But then, I'm not getting a CS degree to increase my salary, I'm getting it because it's fun as hell.

...someone who is interested in what they do as a day job will probably put in more effort that someone who's just a clock watching for-the-money type then frankly he's an idiot. This rule applies to ANY profession, not just programming

Brain surgery? Nothing like after a hard day in the operating theatre unwinding by taking out the kids pre-frontal cortex.

I am a physician (okay, not a brain surgeon, but I do some complex things at work). To the best of my knowledge, all states in the United States require a certain amount of continuing medical education (CMEs). In my current state, it's 100 hours every two years.

In addition, we are required to sit for the board examinations every 10 years. (So long as you got your degree after the early-to-mid 90s; people who passed the boards before then are good for life.)

Or YOU are a bad parent. Ok, maybe not bad, but spending all time with your kids is just silly. I mean, ok if they are 2 or 3, but when they get older they WANT to do their own thing, and you should let them. If they are teenagers, you are just sick.

After I put in my time at work, which is never just 40 hours a week, I come home and have about 2 hours to spend with my young daughter before she goes to bed. Those two hours includes dinner and bath time. If I don't spend that time with her, then her mother comes after me. After she's in bed, I'm at the very end of my day. My brain is mush. I have another 2 hours before I need to sleep. Even if I were capable of programming more, I have zero interest in actually doing so. That is my time to watch tv, veg out, recharge, and catch up with my wife.

Weekends are family time. Either there's a family birthday, or one of my daughter's friends birthdays, or we're going out of town, or there's something else my wife scheduled, or whatever. Programming for fun is about the last thing on my mind. Why? I've already gotten my programming fix from working during the week. Further, my family takes up what little free time I possess. Finally, even if I were able to find the time to sit and code, there is no quiet space in my house where I would be uninterrupted for any length of time by either my daughter or my wife.

If you think I should be spending all my free time coding after putting in more than 40 hours of coding at work, then you have no understanding of work-life balance. People can not live a life of constant work or attention to a single task. You do that and you're all but asking to burn out. Me? I'd like to still be in this industry in 20 years, thank you very much. I don't want to be diabetic at 35 from a complete lack of physical inactivity. I don't want to be single at 40 from ignoring my wife. I don't want a heart attack at 45 from all the stress of work and no free time. I'm in this for a long-haul.

And if you want to be in this industry 20 years from now, I suggest you chill out, even if just a little.

I know, because it's not like we don't have any siblings with kids or friends with kids or were kids ourselves. We know nothing about kids, or parenting, or... what is it you call it? Family?

Please never, ever, ever say this. It is so unbelievably insulting. I actually can think of a couple childless people I know who seemed to be clueless about the lifestyle of coworkers with kids, but I can count them on one hand.

No, I don't know personally what it's like to be responsible for someone's physical and emotional well-being, but I've seen it done, and it looks pretty hard. I don't whine about coworkers with kids until it seems like they use it as a blanket excuse for why they can't do anything even when every other parent is fine with it. You know exactly what I'm talking about (unless you're the one who is always dropping the ball "because of the kids"). It's a mean trick to play on someone, to make them feel like they are directly harming the development of a little child by asking that someone pull their weight.

Then there's the other side. My wife and I can't have kids. That's okay with us; we've gotten over being depressed about it, and have just decided to be active with our families in other ways in the hopes that maybe a niece or nephew might visit us in the nursing home, or at least pick up our ashes. But try selling that to a boss if you don't have kids. People without kids still have families and still want to be connected to them, but unless those family members fell out of your own crotch, they don't really count. It's not like I'm saying "I can't make it to that meeting; my dad has the sniffles." But "Any way I can get out of that unscheduled meeting you threw right in the middle of my family reunion weekend?"

Anyway. Those who have kids understand what it's like to be on both sides (because none of us were born already having kids). Those without kids only understand one side. It's not a personal criticism of you; it's simply a fact. If a fact bothers you, it's more likely that you're attaching your own issues to it.

Before I had kids, I spent a lot of time helping my sister raise her kids. I thought I knew what it was all about because I was around children so much, but when I had my own I found out how wrong I was. It was different because my child is 100% dependent on me, and I am the one on the hook for keeping him safe, making sure he gets all his stuff done, and making sure he has a future. Watching my sister with her kids was not enough even though they lived with me for 2 years. I wasn't invested in them the way she was. I wasn't responsible even though I was technically caring for them. Watching is simply not the same as doing.

I think he's trying to show that you don't have to feel bad for not working in your off-hours, as many people seem to think they should, and also speaking out against companies that encourage and possibly mandate this odd behavior through their hiring practices.

You're misreading what he said, which is understandable with the number of negatives he used. He was making exactly the opposite point, which was that it was your business whether or not you programmed in your free time.

He's 26. He has ~3 years professional experience. What exactly qualifies as years of experience in your eyes, because from where I'm sitting he's a green horn. Not that I agree with the notion that you have to code in your offtime to be worth a crap.